Vahid Ahmedov is punished, and deputies are warned about “self-censorship” ...

The Disciplinary Commission of the Milli Majlis will consider the interview of Deputy Vahid Ahmedov to journalist Mehman Huseynov. The decision on this was made on April 25 at the plenary session. In this interview, Ahmedov said that some deputies are doing business in violation of the law, and criticized the government's activities. For this reason, colleagues criticized him. This caused dissatisfaction of the deputies, and they attacked Ahmedov with angry speeches. They did not consider it right that Vahid Ahmedov gave an interview to Mehman Huseynov.

This is not the first such case. Earlier, the interview of Deputy Erkin Gadirli to Mehman Huseynov also caused discontent in parliament. What does it mean? Why can't a deputy openly express his opinion to the media he prefers? What are the members of Parliament concerned about? Were the deputies banned from speaking?

The chairman of the Public Association for the Study of Democracy Mirali Huseynov answers the questions of ASTNA on this topic.

* * *

Question: The statements of Deputy Vahid Ahmedov in an interview with Mehman Huseynov caused discontent among members of Parliament, and the Disciplinary Commission of the Milli Majlis will consider the issue related to this interview. Is it permissible to punish a deputy for an interview with any media?

Answer: Before answering your question, let me express my regret about the calls to punish a deputy for an interview with any media. It is even more regrettable that deputies made these calls. According to sound logic, the deputies had to defend the right position of their colleague and demonstrate their solidarity with him. Unfortunately, we see the opposite. If they do not do this, it is their business, and no one, except the voters, can condemn them for their position or demand explanations from them. However, with such irresponsible statements, some deputies demonstrate another reprehensible result. In fact, this also indicates that they are not familiar with the requirements of Article 91 of the Constitution, which excludes the responsibility of the MP for the opinion expressed, or ignore them. In both cases, it does not color the deputy who received a mandate from the voters.

Question: What  has caused  such a fury in this interview? Does the deputy's statement in the interview contain something that can be considered by the Disciplinary Commission? Did the deputy really violate any legal norms by making these statements?

Answer: I do not think that the interview of Deputy Vahid Ahmedov contains thoughts that give grounds for bringing his question to the discussion of the Disciplinary Commission. As an independent MP, Vahid Ahmedov expressed his subjective point of view on the current situation. This is quite natural when a situation that some consider acceptable may be completely different for others. In other words, completely different points of view and criteria for evaluating the process are not only normal, but also useful for the work as a whole. In any case, it is not in the public interest to conceal the problem, but to voice it, to solve it. If the current policy, the current situation does not suit someone, it means that he should be deprived of the right to criticism. If legal responsibility is provided for criticism, then in this case we can talk about the responsibility of the deputy. If this is not the case, then what kind of responsibility or violation of ethical norms can we talk about?

Question: This is not the first case. Earlier, the interview  of Erkin Kadirli  with  Mehman Huseynov caused  discontent and indignation of members of parliament. What conclusion can be drawn from this? Are deputies prohibited from expressing thoughts that go beyond the "agenda"? Or is  there an  instruction to give interviews only to certain media or journalists? Is this possible?

Answer: If certain actions and rhetoric are repeated, then none of your conclusions can be rejected, moreover, you can go further in your conclusions and put them forward in even greater numbers. In any case, it is possible that our attempt to evaluate the goal is ultimately still subjective. If there is a non-subjective truth in the existing conditions, it is that certain actions, regardless of the purpose, will strengthen the "self-censorship" of deputies and further weaken critical voices.

Question: How can the disciplinary commission punish a deputy? Or put the question differently - what punishment can Vahid Ahmedov expect?

Answer: The disciplinary commission may bring a deputy to internal parliamentary responsibility in 3 cases:

1. In case of violation of the rules of ethical behavior established by the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan "On the rules of ethical behavior of a deputy of the Milli Majlis of the Republic of Azerbaijan";

2. In case of violation of the relevant requirements of the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan "On Combating Corruption";

3. In case of absence for disrespectful reason at the meetings of the Milli Majlis or its committees and commissions.

If there are any of these grounds, one of the disciplinary measures is applied against a deputy of the Milli Majlis, such as a warning, interruption of speech, removal from the meeting room, reprimand, loss of parliamentary powers.

Disciplinary measures such as a warning, reprimand and loss of parliamentary powers may be applied against Vahid Ahmedov.

Question: In his interview Vahid Ahmedov said that he knows who is behind this scandal. What does this mean? What did Vahid Ahmedov mean by that?

Answer: Vahid Ahmedov is not an ordinary deputy. Thanks to his long stay in parliament, and before that, working with different governments, he knows the balance of power well. Obviously, a person with such a reputation and experience will not throw words to the wind. This is probably a certain message to someone. However, it is unlikely that anyone other than him and the persons to whom the message is addressed will understand this message.

Question: What should happen so that dissent is perceived as the norm by the authorities and parliament in Azerbaijan?

Answer: This is a question related to the system and people. If the system is democratic, and people correctly understand the essence and importance of democracy, then openness and tolerance to various ideas will increase. It would be naive to think that this could happen suddenly, in a short time. Changing public relations, especially public consciousness, is a matter of time. However, if time is not used effectively and efforts are not made to progress, the results will also remain unchanged.